Pakistan bans hard-left Wikipedia for ‘anti-Islam’

New to PJ Media:

A few days ago, the Pakistani government accused my website, Jihad Watch, of blasphemy. I can’t say I’m particularly shocked by this development: I’ve stood up for years to the efforts of Pakistan and other Islamic entities to intimidate the West into adopting Sharia blasphemy laws to curtail free speech and ban images of Muhammad. Prophet of Islam Standing up for free speech is something that will upset the good people of Islamabad. But now the same Pakistani government has taken aim at hyper-woke Wikipedia, accusing the left-wing big tech giant of hurting Muslim sentiments. How uncomfortable they must be today at Wikipedia’s San Francisco headquarters: for years they have been vilifying critics of Islam and whitewashing Islamic doctrine and history, and this is thanks to them.

The Associated Press reported on Monday that the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority had “blocked Wikipedia services in the country for hurting Muslim sentiments without removing allegedly blasphemous content from the site.” Authorities gave Wikipedia 48 hours to remove the allegedly blasphemous content, and when the online encyclopedia didn’t comply, they pressed the ban. “Such things hurt the sentiments of Muslims,” ​​Malahat Obaid of the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority explained the incident.

Well, we can’t have that. It should be expected that the whole world will fill your feelings of hurt and jump in to remove the source of the hurt, but Malahat Obeid and his colleagues are probably used to Western authorities taking exactly that step. Shocked Wikipedia is similarly in no rush to make them feel better. For years, Wikipedia has followed the Left’s warmly favorable line on Islam, which checks all the boxes for something the Left would love as a non-Christian, non-Western and largely non-white religion. Islam’s prophet Muhammad commands obedience to the ruler in virtually all circumstances, and Islam is neatly integrated with the increasingly overt authoritarianism of the left.

Wikipedia’s far-left bias has been noted almost since the site’s inception. Because it incorporates material from previous encyclopedias, it has some value for material that is not remotely controversial, but is of little value for any political or otherwise controversial topic unless you are looking for the left-wing line on a given issue. But perhaps out of some vestige of public duty, to maintain some nominal appearance of objectivity, or simply out of carelessness, it contains elements which some Muslims will find highly objectionable. In a 2005 entry in the initial controversy over cartoons of Muhammad printed in a Danish newspaper, it included the cartoons, albeit in such a small scale that only the most fanatical blasphemy hunter would be able to see anything offensive.

there is more Read the rest here.